"One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.

Except firms are forced to innovate when there is an absence of patents, like in the fashion industry. A design cannot be patented, so the fashion industry invests heavily in creativity.

Let's not pretend some company could wave a magic wand and produce something like the iPhone without software patents. My Android phone tries, but it's not on the same level. Software is an art form, and some people will never be masters.

Except firms are forced to innovate when there is an absence of patents

,

The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won't innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation. Instead, they will sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on innovation and then copy it. Only problem is that you end up with deadlock, because no one wants to spend the money to innovate. They want to take the "wait and see" approach instead, and then copy whatever good ideas come along.

like in the fashion industry. A design cannot be patented

A design cannot be patented? Tell that to Apple, who has successfully won multiple patent lawsuits based on design.

so the fashion industry invests heavily in creativity.

They do? Is that why there are so many cheap knockoffs of expensive fashion designs out there?

Let's not pretend some company could wave a magic wand and produce something like the iPhone without software patents. My Android phone tries, but it's not on the same level.

Android does a pretty good job at being an iPhone knockoff actually. Enough so that Apple is suing some Android phone manufacturers of course. If Apple's track record on suing because of design copying is any indication, Apple will most likely win.

Software is an art form, and some people will never be masters.

So you are implying what? That Google's engineers and designers are not masters?

The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won't innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation.

Bullshit.

Software patents were not granted before 1998. Are you seriously going to argue - with a straight face - that no innovation in softeare took place before 1998? You do realise the bulk of software technologies we use today are far older than 1998, right?

The exact opposite is true. In the absence of patents, firms won't innovate because they cannot protect their investment in innovation. Instead, they will sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on innovation and then copy it. Only problem is that you end up with deadlock, because no one wants to spend the money to innovate. They want to take the "wait and see" approach instead, and then copy whatever good ideas come along.

There are always be idealist dreamers, who will try to build a better rocket.

The software industry already does this. MS is notorious for waiting for a market to emerge and jumping in forcing out the originating companies. Apple repackages loads of software and spins it as new.

The companies who spend money on R&D are the ones that survive. What you're forgetting is the expertise gained by R&D puts them miles ahead of the clones. There are nuances to everything that are only gained by disciplined study, and skipping those nuances results in sub-par products. Take Chinese cars for instance. They basically cloned some western cars, and the cars ended up with the safety of an aluminum can. They thought there wasn't much to building a car, but they were wrong.

People will pay for the expertise, especially when there is millions of dollars at stake.

Is that why there are so many cheap knockoffs of expensive fashion designs out there?

There are tons of cheap knock offs because people want to look like they have money, and a design can't be patented.

Once again, the knockoffs miss the nuances. They use cheaper fabric, or they change the cut. For instance, Coach leather is really nice, but knockoff leather is not, if it's leather at all.

The fashion industry releases new designs two or three times a year to keep ahead of the cloners.

Android does a pretty good job at being an iPhone knockoff actually. Enough so that Apple is suing some Android phone manufacturers of course. If Apple's track record on suing because of design copying is any indication, Apple will most likely win.

Android does a good job in a traced, paint-by-numbers way.

I'm talking fit and finish. Basically Google took an iPhone, created a check list, and built Android from that check list. You can tell. The stability isn't there, but the bling is, and there are somethings which don't make sense.

So you are implying what? That Google's engineers and designers are not masters?

I thought it was pretty clear what I was implying. Some people will try to be artists, but they will fail to expand beyond their influences creating anonymous artwork with fills empty space on walls. Some people will copy other artists stroke for stroke, and other people will create velvet Elvises.

Not everyone is a Picasso, Dali, Bosch, or Da Vinci. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to be; it just means they may not get there.

I don't see anyone at Google building a Fallingwater; I see them out building Quonset huts.